The Developing and Deepening Conflict
Host: Farhad Saba

Historical and Present Day Realities in the Middle East

(Participant) "Fred": Welcome to the ILF think-process. You'll find our thoughts interesting, if not always connected with each other.

I'm just back from a board meeting (in Chicago) of the American Refugee Committee, where we were trying to figure out how best to help with the humanitarian fallout of an invasion of Iraq--whether or not we felt the invasion was a Good Thing, which most of us didn't.

Our starting point was an estimate that 900,000 Iraqi refugees will find themselves, at least temporarily, in Iran. ARC happens to have a permesso from the US Government to operate in Iran. We're hoping the Iranian government will welcome help from an American NGO in coping with the public health problems that huge influx of refugees will create.

But our puzzlement raises a larger question: What's likely to be the reaction of (a) Iran's government, with its splits you know better than any of us, and (b) Iranians at large, to an incursion of US military power next door, designed to overthrow an Iraqi regime with which Iran itself was recently at war? Will the humanitarian fallout of a war in Iraq engage the active interest and/or sympathy of Iranians? Most of the refugees from the southern part of Iraq would presumably be Shi'ite Muslims; how will that play out in Iran's religious politics?

Can you say something in this conference to help us understand the "Iran angle" of what seems about to happen?

(Participant) Good questions, Harlan. Did your group think that masses of refugees would also go into Turkey, as half a million of them did in '91?

(Farhad Saba) Thanks, Harlan. As you know, the official posture of the Iranian government is that the US has no business attacking Iraq. They are, as far the public opinion in Iran is concerned, afraid of the US actually succeeding in installing a more democratic regime.

However, to make sure that they can stay in power, not matter what happens, the clergy are actually cooperating with the US DOD in providing for US pilots to land in Iran in case of emergency.

Another issue, as you know, is the Kurds. An unstable Iraq means Kurdish independence, which will inevitably spread to Iran and Turkey as well.

In any event, there will be a major refugee problem from Iraq to Iran, and much suffering.

(Participant) Fred's 1:28 contains several statements that are extremely important and deserve further discussion--not about their accuracy, but about how the favorable actions might be induced.

For example, where in our government might we attack the problem "while International economic entities impatiently force huge loans, and other goods and services on them that they cannot consume? Dictators emerge to get these resources . . .?

(Participant) An article by a former CIA agent in this morning's New York Times suggests that the Iranian leaders are actually dead set against a US-led reformation in Iraq, but are biding their time so as to be able first to get a nuclear weapon. Then he expects Iran to challenge the US, while a post-war Iraq is still democratically unstable. He also says that the mullahs look down on Iraq as culturally unsophisticated.

He says that the Iranian government is concerned about being a member of Bush's "axis of evil" and believes they are next on his list. And that the pro- American sentiments of the younger Iranians only make them more nervous, encouraging them to expect the worst.

Whatcha think, Fred?

(Farhad Saba) Richard: Where was this CIA analyst when we needed him/her? Please, see my comments after „»

An article by a former CIA agent in this morning's New York Times suggests that the Iranian leaders are actually dead set against a US-led reformation in Iraq.

„» Yes, I believe this is an accurate statement. Any sign of US success in region (including Afghanistan) is a major set back f[sic] or the ayatollahs. Remember that their claim to fame, primarily, is getting rid of the influence of America in Iran! Now the Americans are back in the region replacing one regime after another, if we succeed in Iraq.

…but are biding their time so as to be able first to get a nuclear weapon. Then he expects Iran to challenge the US, while a post-war Iraq is still democratically unstable.

„» I don’t think that Iran will become a viable nuclear power in the next five years. They just do not have the technology or the money .

He also says that the mullahs look down on Iraq as culturally unsophisticated.

„» That is true. As far back as 1200 years ago, I used to read in my history book in high school, Iranians were the sophisticates who brought science and technology to the caliphs in Baghdad. Some things never change even in 1,200 years!

He says that the Iranian government is concerned about being a member of Bush's "axis of evil" and believes they are next on his list. And that the pro American sentiments of the younger Iranians only make them more nervous, encouraging them to expect the worst.

„» Close to half of Iran’s population is under 20 years of age. They have no serious job prospects, their social life is nonexistent, and due to a sever[e] shortage of housing, they cannot get married and live in a separate house from their parents. In addition, there is major drug and prostitution problem among the youth in epidemic proportion[s]. If you are 18 years old and live in Iran, you are looking at an extremely bleak future.

The ruling mullahs are in their 60’s and 70’s and have lost touch with half of the population on which they should rely if they are to sustain themselves. In addition, any young mullah who criticizes the ruling elite, even slightly, is silenced immediately. Even without the US presence, and before the "Developing Crisis" the condition of the current Iranian government was critical.

(Participant) Fred, from the point of view of "what would be best for the world--kind of overall and generally", what really should be done about Iraq in particular and the mid-east in general? Everybody seems to have an opinion, yet those opinions seemed to be based on the person's own agenda. Is there any way to look at the whole thing objectively, take into account all the needs of the global community and then develop a reasonable, responsible, perhaps even fair policy?"

(Farhad Saba) Wow, Kip! That is a big question. If I were to put an agenda together I would start with Palestine and bring the so-called Arab-Israeli conflict to a conclusion. It is an outrage that Arab countries with billions of dollars in oil revenue cannot help Palestinians to leave refugee camps, and become productive citizens.

The resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict will remove the number one excuse for Muslim countries to be unjustifiably critical of the West. They should be critical of rich Arab rulers who have kept the Majority of Palestinians poor and uneducated as pawns. A recent World Bank report indicated that twenty-seven months after the outbreak of the intifada, 60 percent of the population of the West Bank and Gaza live under a poverty line of US$2 per day. The numbers of the poor have tripled from 637,000 in September 2000 to nearly 2 million today.

The conflict is kept alive by the regimes of Arab, and non-Arab countries in the Middle East to deflect attention from oppression, and human rights violations in their own states. Every atrocity in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Iran is brushed aside, or justified in the name of Palestine.

(Participant) Fred: I realize how sensitive this issue is, and bring it up recognizing that it must be handled with great sensitivity. Your own population statistics in your #37 above says it all. There is no way that people in the West Bank and Gaza can look forward to a decent standard of living at current rates of fertility. The fact that difference in fertility rates between Palestinians and Jews are so great is an unspoken and dangerous fact.

(Participant) In the same way that our invasion of Afghanistan legitimized, and essentially initiated, Sharon's invasion of Palestinian territories, it is interesting to speculate about the larger ramifications of an unprovoked pre-emptive war. What other countries will now be emboldened? Will the Turks take over the Kurdish area? Will other Middle Eastern countries make moves? Will Israel polish off the Palestinians?

Or will a quick military victory quiet things down in that part of the world, as the Bush administration hopes? Bernard Lewis, the author whom the Bush administration most admires, argues that strong military action is the way to handle the Middle Easterners, and they will respect it. What do you folks think? Fred?

(Participant) A professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence said today on NPR that the anger felt by Islamic countries has increased dramatically since the beginning of the war--more frustrated and desperate, calling for a jihad against America.

The war marks a major event in history, and some believe, as I do, that it signifies a major redirection of American policy in ways that will deepen our troubles. Those opposed are regarded as unpatriotic. Bush said today that the protestors would do better to be "picking up litter".

(Farhad Saba) Raymond: This could be positive. Let me know if it is…

In one of my previous postings, I mentioned that Ali was Prophet Muhammad’s son-law, and his successor. Well, this is the Shi’it version of Muhammad’s succession. According to the Sunnis, who comprise the overwhelming majority of Muslims, Muhammad’s successor was "elected." He was not a relative of Muhammad. And therein is the major rift between Shi’its and Sunnis, and the difference between their forms of governance.

Now, it is not known how this "election" took place, and if it met any modern standards. I am sure it did not. It was more of a consensus than an election. Nevertheless, I think there are forward-looking Muslim scholars who agree that this historical background could be "exploited," modernized, and made the base of a democratic form of government. Please, keep in mind that I am not going too far back to find democracy in Islam. In ancient countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc.) going back 1,200 years ago to find a historical excuse is not going back very far. The historical range can go as far back as 6,000 years ago.

(Farhad Saba) Well, I think we have to remember a few facts about Iraq. It became an independent state in 1932 and a monarch ruled it until 1958. Since the monarchy was overthrown in a bloody coup d'état, it has been ruled as a "republic." As a republic, transition in government has always been through one bloody coup after another. Iraq has never had a normal transition in power.

Iraq has never been able to develop a viable political system. It has had little or no interest in statecraft. Governance of the country has remained crude and underdeveloped, and there has been little or no capacity building in civil and government institutions. For example, while Egyptian civil servants have been appointed to prominent roles in international affairs at the UN and other bodies, rarely someone from Iraq has risen to such levels.

The ideology of the Ba’ath Party is not well articulated, and remains to be socialism in its core embellished with a mishmash of ideas borrowed from Islam, Stalinism, and Fascism. The country swims in oil, but its recent rulers have not shared the wealth of the country with its population while Saudis, Kuwaitis, and people in the Arab sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf area have received much more of their national wealth, and live in luxury relative to Iraqis.

While Baghdad and Basra are historic cities, the current and previous regimes have failed miserably in the past 70 years of independence to give Iraqis a distinct historic identity based on a common language and history. For example, until the palace used by the Iraq’s monarchy was obliterated by an American bomb last week, it was used as a facility to torture people. Once you entered the palace, you probably did not leave it alive. Thus, Kurds, Turkmen tribes, Arab Bedouins and city dwellers who have not been co-opted by the government have no way of identifying with the regime other than through fear.

While Baghdad was the center of the Islamic world for centuries before it was consumed by the Ottoman Empire, its rulers since it regained its independence have tried to regain its past glory through military conquest. Thus, they allied themselves with the Soviet Union, and at the first opportunity attacked Iran, and then Kuwait. They never tried to rise in the Arab world through a superior ideology, economy, statecraft, science or technology.

Exercise of power internally has been through fear, intimidation, coercion, and harassment; and externally through military conquest. Saddam and his older son are serial murderers who have killed their own family members, and hundreds of thousands of Arabs, Kurds, and Iranians. No one in the world in the modern history has killed more Arabs than Saddam!

Now, such a regime will collapse in no time once the citizens realize the members of multiple security agencies are loosing control. The Iraqi regular army right now is facing the guns of the American and the British military in front, and the guns of Saddam’s internal security apparatus in back; something that Saddam learned from Stalin.

There is no comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. The North Vietnamese regular army and Viet Cong supported Ho Chi Min. There is support for Saddam in the security apparatus, but not in the regular army. US POWs of the Gulf War will tell you that they received professional care in the hands of the regular Army, and because of this they were transferred to the secret police.

For these reasons, Baghdad will collapse in a few weeks, but I doubt that any head of state from another Arab country would want to help in developing the governance of Iraq. Saddam, like the Shah in Iran, will not leave any viable system of governance for anyone to build upon when he leaves. And there is the real challenge for the MacArthur of Iraq.

(Farhad Saba) On inspiration…

Today, I spent two hours with four female Afghan educators who are visiting San Diego. Their trip is sponsored by San Diego Sister Schools. I can speak Dary, one of the two languages in Afghanistan. So, it was easy for me to understand what they were saying and translate for my American students. In this meeting there were also two of my American students at San Diego State University who are assigned as their course project to interact with the Afghan teachers in order to understand their professional needs.

Summarizing two hours of discussion with them, they told us that in the past five years they were denied practicing their profession. As women, they were also persona non grata. They are here to learn as much as they can about new educational practices and the use of technology in education. They are very eager to go back and help their students learn better.

They teach 40 to 50 students at a time, in schools that run in three shifts in a 24- hour period. The rooms designated as library are empty. There are no books in them. There are no functioning labs in these schools, and education is primarily theoretical and conceptual, with no real means of practice.

Electricity is rationed with some neighborhoods receiving a few hours per day. Internet access is virtually non-existent in private homes. Some homes are wired with digital phone lines, so there is potential for Internet access. Most people who access the Internet have to go to a government office.

They are paid $30 per month, which compels them to have more than one job, in addition to raising their children, being active in NGOs and in the local women organization.

They were very engaged, involved, and inspiring while we were interviewing them. It was a pleasure talking with them, and I am sure my students will do their best to help them. On a Friday afternoon, I was a bit tired going to this meeting. I was looking forward to a restful evening after this meeting. When I left, I was not tired anymore, and was charged to get back to my computer and go back to work. They had certainly inspired me.

(Participant) I watched the Syrian ambassador tonight state unequivocally that there are no Hussein regime leaders in Syria. He was as adamant (and to me as believable) as the Iraqi minister of information when he said there were no US troops in Baghdad.

I find it difficult to imagine negotiating with an official body who believes that it is acceptable to lie in the most bald-faced way (at least if the lie is told to the unbeliever).

How is it possible to "resolve" the Israeli/Palestinian conflict if one side will say anything at all and then simply not follow up on it--never even have any intention to follow through on it? Doesn't negotiation require a certain fundamental level of trust and truth?

(Participant) It would be interesting to hear the diplomats among us comment on your concerns, Kip. Truth is a rare commodity, especially among political leaders. Interviewers cannot even ask the most important questions, and the ones they do ask are almost never answered truthfully. I'm sure diplomacy is similarly full of distortion and deception. Indeed, we use the term "diplomatically" to refer to a way of treating an issue without confronting the full harsh truth.

We do have the interesting phenomenon of the top scientist in Iraq, now that he is in custody, still saying that there are no weapons of mass destruction. They haven't used any, and so far we haven't found any. Wouldn't it be a fascinating departure from the norm if he had been telling the truth all along? We are in this war because we didn't believe him. Well, that was the excuse, anyway.

As an aside, Jay Leno remarked that post-war we are going to divide Iraq into three parts--regular, premium and unleaded.

(Participant) Kip: You might want to substitute "Iraqi" for "Iranian" in your No. 76, second sentence.

(Participant) OOPS! Thanks Ray. Dick, I understand full well the range of games played in "diplomacy". Nonetheless, in any successful negotiation a certain level of trust and truth is required. The Israeli Palestinian conflict will not be resolved via the 'normal' diplomatic methods--we've seen that. How would I negotiate a working agreement with you if you publicly declared that you deeply believed that lying to me was moral? If you consistently lied to me and broke your word how would any agreement between us be of any value to me?

(Farhad Saba) : I would divide the Ayatollahs in Iran into four factions, and give them the following labels. I am not sure if they agree to my classification and labeling, but here it is:

1- Progressives, such as Ayatollah Shariaatmadari, who has been under house arrest since the current regime has taken over. At the turn of the century in early 1900’s his predecessors were leaders of a reform movement that forced the Qajar dynasty to accept constitutional monarchy, agree to formation of a house of representatives (Majlis) and hold the first modern election in Iran. They also reformed the judiciary and brought other new ideas for governance to Iran from France.
2- Pragmatists, such as the former President Ayatollah Rafsanjani who has called for a referendum on normalization of relations with the US.
3- Neo-Progressives, such as Ayatollah Khatami, the current President, who has called for a "dialog among civilizations."
4- Fundamentalists, such as Ayatollah Khamenei, the "Supreme Leader" who sees no reason for relationships with the West, supports annihilation of Israel, and funds the international terror network.
In my view, there is no substantial difference between pragmatists, neo-progressives, and fundamentalists. Their difference can only be seen in their rhetoric, and narrative they present. The narrative of Rafsanjani and Khatami is milder than Khamenei, but they do not genuinely believe in a representative form of government, and freedom of press and speech as Ayatollah Shariaatmadari does. They are, in essence, fundamentalists who try to present an acceptable front to world public opinion.

The "outside agitators" sent to Iraq are directly supported by Khamenei and his terror network.

I am not sure why the progressive faction, including Shariaatmadri have received almost no press in the US. Shariaatmadri and his followers are well educated, highly articulate, and well versed in political philosophy. They are also imprisoned, harassed, and killed on a regular basis. However, I don’t think they will dare to kill Shariaatmadari, if he is interviewed by a high-profile journalist, such as, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, or Dan Rather.

I am also amazed that the US government agencies (CIA, DOD, and the State Department) are not supporting the progressives, and have supported armed terrorist thugs, such as Mujahedin-e-Khalg. The Mujahedin-e-Khalg are a cross breed of fundamentalism and fascism, and are far more violent than the fundamentalists, if that is possible.

(Participant) Fred, do you have some idea on a way to reconcile the differences between these groups--at least enough to have a government that represents all of them equitably? Or are the differences so deep that cooperation among them toward forming a balanced Iraq is impossible?

(Farhad Saba) Kip, I don’t think the fundamentalists want any reconciliation. They feed off the uneducated masses, who support them blindly. They also keep the masses uneducated to keep supporting them strongly. It is an unhealthy and dangerous interdependence.

The fundamentalists perceive any light shed over the situation to be detrimental to their power, and fight any move for clarification and reconciliation vehemently. They have the power now and see no reason to change.

The only hope in the Middle East is among the youth who in various countries compose more than half the population. They are unemployed and socially frustrated. They are also woefully uneducated and ignorant, and have no access to the variety of sources of knowledge and information that we do in the west.

Here is another opportunity that Western governments have missed. Reaching the youth in the Middle East through the mass media. They are eager to learn, and are in search of a better future. But have little or no access to alternative sources of information and knowledge.

(Participant) Fred, it occurred to me that your description of the current power groups in Iraq (in your 1:106) seems to fit almost exactly Mary Douglas' description of enclaves. See interview http://www.wbsi.org/ilfdigest/interviews.htm

Based on further comments from her I would expect that the USA as a hierarchy hasn't a clue about how to treat successfully with an enclave.

She also mentions that recruitment of members is crucial to enclaves. Since you see the potential future power as lying in the hands of the youth, I wonder if it would be advantageous to create a new enclave. One which offers hope in this life--jobs, education, food, shelter, etc.--rather than trying to force democracy down everybody's throat. In simple terms, mightn't we create a new group, assign it specific goals, dress it, organize it, fund it and then compete with the other enclaves for membership? There's no reason it mightn't be based on the teachings of the Koran, but perhaps tempered to encourage tolerance and cooperation.

(Participant) Kip: I like your willingness to try something new. We are definitely in a period of crisis where new ideas should be tested in groups like this without worrying how they fit into traditional patterns.

What we need to keep in mind is that discussion is a transition to action, not a fatal leap into the unknown.

(Participant) Thanks, Don. I realized when I wrote it that it was simplistic, but I see us as trying to replace something broken with something foreign and I'm not sure that is the best way to proceed. If we try to foist our dream on the enclaves Fred listed we might just give them a common "foreign enemy." I thought we might consider helping to build an enclave that would satisfy the Iraqis rather than ourselves. It seems to me that enabling Iraq to take some first steps as a participating, cooperative, responsible member of the world community might be a good beginning. Probably sounds naive. The form of government seems to me less important than the content--Dick's earlier contrary comment about form over function notwithstanding.

Previous Page          Next Page

top